DarwidHalim wrote:Are you saying this world is divided into 1 part is fabricated and another part is unfabricated?

On the evidence of the suttas that appears to be what the Buddha taught.

DarwidHalim wrote:If you cannot find the unfabricated right now and right here, where else can you find the unfabricated?

Well, of course. You'd have to "find" the unfabricated right here and right now. No surprise there. How to find it seems to be the difficult question. However, as Tiltbillings is indicating, making "the unfabricated" into a "thing" to be "found" is probably missing the point.

This world is not something, which is initially permanent, then you do some dharma practice and then it becomes impermanent.

This worls is also not something which is initially has self, then you do some dharma practice and then it becomes anatta.

Buddha has no power to change permanent to impermanent, and to change self to no self.

What Buddha find is this world is always impermanent and always anatta. But we misinterpred it as permanent and has self.

Buddha discovered what is already there. Buddha never make anything new.

Copernicus found that the sun is the centre of the orbit in around 1514.

Although people living in Year 800 or 500, think the earth is the centre of the orbit, their ignorance cannot reject the fact that the sun is ALREADY AND ALWAYS the centre of the orbit.

Copernicus is not someone who make the sun becomes the centre of the orbit. He is only someonly who discovered.

Similarly,

Buddha is not someone who make permanent becomes impermanent, and atta becomes anatta. Buddha is just someone who has discovered that RIGHT NOW, LONG LONG TIME AGO, and IN THE FUTURE, this world and yourself is ALREADY impermanent and anatta.

Buddha has no power to make something permanent to impermanent and atta to anatta.

There is no such thing that this place is permanent and atta, then after you study buddhism, you can go to another dimension, which is impermanent and anatta. This is completely absurd.

It is right now and right here, everything is always and always impermanent, anatta, no arising, no cessation, no duration, no increment, no decrement, etc.

Just because we can't see no arising, and no cessation right now and right here, it doesn't mean you are right now not impermanent, and not anatta.

Just like people who live in Year 800, just because they can't see the earth is the centre of the orbit, it doesn't mean the earth is actually the centre of the orbit.

Just because you still have greed, hatred and delusion , it cannot avoid the fact that right now and right here, it is impermanent, no arising, and no cessation, no self.

Just like people who have this mindset earth is the centre of orbit, it cannot avoid the fact that right now and right here, the sun is the centre of the orbit.

A very famous buddhist monk was asked this question this question:

(Q) My mind is anxious. Please pacify it.

(A) Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it.

(Q) Although I’ve sought it, I cannot find it.

(A) I have pacified your mind.

We can say I am angry, I am so greedy.

But have we ever ask this question - RIGHT NOW AND RIGHT HERE - I want to pin point my anger and my greedy?

You find nothing even when you are angry. You cannot find your anger, even when you are angry.

You also cannot find your greedy, even when you are greedy.

If you never search, they look like there. But when you go and search, you find nothing.

It depends on whether you are lazy or not to search it.

It is right now and right here you find nothing, because like what Buddha said in his higher teaching:

No arising is discernible, no passing away is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible

Always, and always.

It has been there since beginningless time, right now, and forever in the future.

Impermanent is anatta.Anatta is impermanent.There is no arising, no cessation, no duration.

Right here.Right now.

Yes, you might be angry right now.But, please show me, where is that anger? Which part of you body I can find your anger?

Just because you think you have self right now and you are permanent, you cannot avoid the very fact that right now, right here, there is no such thing called self.

You think there is arising, and cessation. It looks like that.

But, please show it, where is that very thing, which is right now arising and ceasing?

I am not here nor there. I am not right nor wrong. I do not exist neither non-exist. I am not I nor non-I. I am not in samsara nor nirvana. To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

Sounds like a strain of emptiness sickness. After all, the Mahasatipatthana Sutta suggests that one knows an angry mind as such, or a non-angry mind as such. This bewildered "where is it?" is hardly in keeping with that.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

DarwidHalim wrote:"A very famous buddhist monk was asked this question this question:

(Q) My mind is anxious. Please pacify it.

(A) Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it.

(Q) Although I’ve sought it, I cannot find it.

(A) I have pacified your mind."

When Master Bodhidharma replied to Master Huike's problem with an agitated mind, he gave a response that is perfectly in line with what the Buddha taught. "Bring me your mind" was to remind Huike not to fall into that nasty "identification" trap of "I", "mine", and "myself". Then "I cannot find it" was the affirmation of the Three Characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactory, and non-self..

Alex:"I haven't read all that you have posted, but to me it seems that "conceiving" means something like strongly considering things to be "I, me, mine" and also to wrongly believe that they are nicca, sukha, atta, and worthy of attachment."

I completely agree that all these things are involved. I have not spoken about them yet because it is not clear to me which, if any, are involved from the start.

For example, in this passage:

Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu does not conceive the eye, does not conceive inthe eye, does not conceive from the eye, does not conceive, 'The eye is mine.'

If we reverse this to describe the ordinary man:

... he conceives the eye, he conceives in the eye, he conceives from the eye, he conceives, 'The eye is mine.'

Are these four separate "conceivings"? Four sequential "conceivings"? Or four aspects of a single "conceiving"?

Could the ideas of permanence and pleasure be involved at first, followed after by ideas of "I" and "mine"?

"If, through revulsion towards the eye, through its fading away and cessation,one is liberated by nonclinging, one can be called a bhikkhu who has attainedNibbana in this very life." [Part of SN 35.155]

Which meaning of "eye" shall we use here from Margaret Cone's Dictionary?

cakkhu, 1. the eye; the organ of sight; the faculty of seeing, sight;...

If there is something, and we possess that something, it is the greatest lying if we say we do not conceive it.

But if there is no anything, and we claim there is something, it is foolish.

Buddhism is not the teaching that make you lie to yourself.

It doesn't teach us, there are eyes, but please don't conceive it.

If you have it, of course we should conceive it.

But if you don't it, how do you conceive?

We have this mindset that buddhahood is only realized when you have died. When you don't have this body, at that moment you don't have eyes, you don't have ear, etc.

But Siddharta Gautama achieved buddhahood when he was 35/36. All Buddha great disciples realize their arhat, when they are still alive, with their eyes, nose, ears, etc. still intact.

But why when your eyes are still intact, nose, ears are there you can't conceive that?

Are you stroke or something?

The one that make you have eyes is not these 2 white and black balls. But it is your concept that say that as eyes, that mislead you to perceive as if you have eyes.

If you see the mirage, the mirage deceive you there is water there.

Similarly, if you see something with label, that label can deceive you there is self there.

How does label deceive us?

If we really look carefully, label is put on the basis. But we are not consistent.

My basis is always changing every moment, but my label never change!

Because of that, you trap yourself with something permanent.

Why? Because what you see is your labeling. And your labeling cover your insight or make you forget that the basis actually is always changing.

Once you make a label on some basis, you jail yourself to the fixity through that constant label.

If you want to be consistent, be fair.

If you basis is changing, you should change your label as well.

Since any basis which is impermanent is always changing at every second, your label must change at every second.

If we can do it, we have a hope to see that actual reality which is untrapped by the constant label.

The best thing to do is actually to strip off the label completely. Free yourself from any label.

Experience yourself the true impermanence without any concept.

You will see there, it is in fact foolish to even think we have 2 eyes, nose, etc. at this moment.

When in your experience, you cannot find by specific character, the appearance of eyes really can deceive us to conceive there are something called eyes.

Another aspect that close our ability to see we don't have eyes are actually the rate of changing is extremely slow. It really fool us. If you see the mirror, you will see your eyes never change.

This can fool us, but if you take the photo and compare, you can see there is nothing specific in the eyes.

When there are nothing specific, what can you conceive as such and such?

I am not here nor there. I am not right nor wrong. I do not exist neither non-exist. I am not I nor non-I. I am not in samsara nor nirvana. To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

But, in such a fast pace, please ask yourself where is the specific flower which is unchanged?

If you can't find the specific thing, why you still strongly hold there is a flower?

This question is really important.

Can I say something as such when I cannot pin point the specific thing which never change?

I am not here nor there. I am not right nor wrong. I do not exist neither non-exist. I am not I nor non-I. I am not in samsara nor nirvana. To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

vinasp wrote: In my opinion, Theravada Buddhism DOES teach that the eye exists, and that we can cognize (know) that fact, but we should not "conceive": 'The eye is mine.'

The word "conceive" is not really correct here. To cognize means to know things as they really are. To "conceive" (mannati) means to imagine that which is not real.

The problem is we just can't.

If something is seen, it is natural for us to hold it, to grasp it.

If something is seen or conceive, it is unavoidable for grasping and attachment or aversion to arise.

No matter how hard you try to maintain that distance between seeing that something and conceiving that something, you will collapse.

Buddha said suffering is to be understood in the first noble truth. Interestly, he didn't said suffering is to be avoided.

The problem Is avoiding cannot solve the problem. We can avoid certain things, but again soon or later we will collapse.

Even god at the highest peak of samsara, who say in the neither-perception-nor-non-perception, cannot maintain their meditative power forever. In the beginning of his life, he can maintain his meditative power that can make him maintain to not conceive the object. But, at the end of his life, due to his karma, when he can see he will reborn again in this or that state, he will lost control. God has the power to see clairvoyance to some extend. When you see you will born here and get this torture, that treatment, etc., you lost control.

At that point, something who can maintain for so many aeons, simply fall apart. The suffering then starts at the end of his life.

NO point to try to not conceive. We can sit in the room and get away from this life, just meditate and go to jhana. Fine. At that point you are safe. But, watch out, once you get out from that meditation state, you will just collapse soon or later.

This is where vipassana cOme in. Vipassana is to see the true nature of this thing. And the true nature of everything is hollow, empty.

It looks like there is something, but that thing which you think is there, is actually not there.

If you can see that, that insight free you from grasping and attachment in a very natural way.

The stillness caused by vipassana insight, is unaffected by anything, unstained by anything.

You don't scare with anything. Because the more you see the behavior of thing, the more intense they are, the more you feel the truth that they are empty. It is like firewood. The more you involve in this life, the more you see directly there is nothing.

You can't see emptiness with eyes. You see that with your insight (wisdom), which belong to the mind.

In all Buddhist school, none of them reject there are things called eyes. They do acknowledge that.

But,

When you really take the object in front of you, and you try to find the core, you end up with nothing. Like you peel the onion.

If you see the onion it looks like there is onion. It is at this point, everything is accepted as true.

But,

When you search the core of the onion, when you peel it, what you get is empty space. It is at this point, your insight grows.

I see something with my eyes, BUT I DONT SEE ANYTHING WITH MY INSIGHT.

There is no point how we discuss eyes are impermanent or we don't conceive this or that.

The really point that kick the ball is only this?

Do you see that something with your insight or not?

If yes, you are not free yet, from any dangerous.

But if you can see the insight has nothing, no matter how your eyes see the form, hear the sound, taste the food, etc., you will just still in the stillness of nothing is arising and nothing is ceasing.

No matter how strong and how real the mirage looks like, your insight that tell you there is nothing there, make you extremely still from grasping the idea there is water there.

Look here, although the though of "there is water there". The one that make you still is not the power of avoidance.

If you tell people who never know the more phenomena, no matter how strong there are in maintaining your idea in the beginning, that people will lose believe in your words. They will go and chase that mirage, and try die there.

But if that person have the insight there is nothing there, it is thing insight that make them still, that make them unmove - no matter how strong the appearance of water really look like.

Empty, hollow.

Is this water or mirage?

Can you rely on your 5 senses to see the deceiver?

You see eyes with your 5 senses by touching it, by seeing it, by feel it. but you shouldn't get fooled by your own senses.

Insight is seen with mind.

When you see with insight, even this mind is unseen.

Thia life if unseen with insight of emptiness is really a Great deceiver.

I see the water with my eyes, but I don't see the water with my insight, because no water thereI see the feeling with my senses, but I don't see the feeling with my insight, because no self there.

Existence is just a deceiver.

Nothing truly exist in all appearances.

Empty-appearances.

I am not here nor there. I am not right nor wrong. I do not exist neither non-exist. I am not I nor non-I. I am not in samsara nor nirvana. To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

As Ajahn Chah says, "Things are determined into existence ie. labelled into existence. There is no eye in reality( it is empty). Eye is just a label.

Appearances are determined into existence. Why must we determine them? Because they don't intrinsically exist. For example, suppose somebody wanted to make a marker. He would take a piece of wood or a rock and place it on the ground, and then call it a marker. Actually it's not a marker. There isn't any marker, that's why you must determine it into existence. In the same way we ''determine'' cities, people, cattle - everything! Why must we determine these things? Because originally they do not exist.

Concepts such as ''monk'' and ''layperson'' are also ''determinations.'' We determine these things into existence because intrinsically they aren't here. It's like having an empty dish - you can put anything you like into it because it's empty. This is the nature of determined reality. Men and women are simply determined concepts, as are all the things around us.

If we know the truth of determinations clearly, we will know that there are no beings, because ''beings'' are determined things. Understanding that these things are simply determinations, you can be at peace. But if you believe that the person, being, the ''mine,'' the ''theirs,'' and so on are intrinsic qualities, then you must laugh and cry over them. These are the proliferation of conditioning factors. If we take such things to be ours there will always be suffering. This is micch?ditthi, wrong view. Names are not intrinsic realities, they are provisional truths. Only after we are born do we obtain names, isn't that so? Or did you have your name already when you were born? The name comes afterwards, right? Why must we determine these names? Because intrinsically they aren't there.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

daverupa wrote:Sounds like a strain of emptiness sickness. After all, the Mahasatipatthana Sutta suggests that one knows an angry mind as such, or a non-angry mind as such. This bewildered "where is it?" is hardly in keeping with that.

After I read the link from Pagembara, I think I can give some comments on it.

It is indeed tempting to read all Buddhist scriptures. It sounds very nice when you can know the meaning of Pali, or the definition of Buddhist jargon, buddhist concepts, etc. All of them are vast.

But, no matter how vast you want to study buddhism - there is only 1 question in the end.

How can I surpass this suffering? And the answer is only this emptiness sickness - "Where are those things?"

If we want to get sick, the best sickness is this emptiness sickness.

Yes, we may have studied buddhism day and night, but are we actually study the "external teaching" or the "core teaching"?

People are generally ignorant when it comes to determinations, they think they all exist of themselves. When the books tell us that trees, mountains and rivers are non-mind-attended conditions, this is simplifying things. This is just the superficial teaching, there's no reference to suffering, as if there was no suffering in the world. This is just the shell of Dhamma. If we were to explain things in terms of ultimate truth, we would see that it's people who go and tie all these things down with their attachments. How can you say that things have no power to shape events, that they are not mind-attended, when people will beat their children even over one tiny needle? One single plate or cup, a plank of wood... the mind attends all these things. Just watch what happens if someone goes and smashes one of them up and you'll find out. Everything is capable of influencing us in this way. Knowing these things fully is our practice, examining those things which are conditioned, unconditioned, mind-attended, and non-mind-attended.

This is part of the ''external teaching,'' as the Buddha once referred to them. At one time the Buddha was staying in a forest. Taking a handful of leaves, He asked the bhikkhus, ''Bhikkhus, which is the greater number, the leaves I hold in my hand or the leaves scattered over the forest floor?''

The bhikkhus answered, ''The leaves in the Blessed One's hand are few, the leaves scattered around the forest floor are by far the greater number.''

''In the same way, bhikkhus, the whole of the Buddha's teaching is vast, but these are not the essence of things, they are not directly related to the way out of suffering. There are so many aspects to the teaching, but what the Tath?gata really wants you to do is to transcend suffering, to inquire into things and abandon clinging and attachment to form, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness7.'' Stop clinging to these things and you will transcend suffering. These teachings are like the leaves in the Buddha's hand. You don't need so much, just a little is enough. As for the rest of the teaching, you needn't worry yourselves over it. It is just like the vast earth, abundant with grasses, soil, mountains, forests. There's no shortage of rocks and pebbles, but all those rocks are not as valuable as one single jewel. The Dhamma of the Buddha is like this, you don't need a lot.

.... to inquite into things ..... are the works of emptiness sickness.

Very good article from Ajahn Chah btw.

I am not here nor there. I am not right nor wrong. I do not exist neither non-exist. I am not I nor non-I. I am not in samsara nor nirvana. To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

"If, through revulsion towards the eye, through its fading away and cessation,one is liberated by nonclinging, one can be called a bhikkhu who has attainedNibbana in this very life." [Part of SN 35.155]

Which meaning of "eye" shall we use here from Margaret Cone's Dictionary?

cakkhu, 1. the eye; the organ of sight; the faculty of seeing, sight;...

The 'cakkhu' in this Pali passage means 'sight'. It would be ridiculous to speak of the passion towards the literal eye, ear, nose, tongue as the key factors of samsara.

Is this bhikkhu trying to lose his sight?

There's no word like 'lose' in this passage.

The experience of Nibbana is beyond the six sense spheres, so during it six senses cease.

there is one Sutta (SN 35.197) which compares the internal sense bases with an empty village and the external sense bases with village-plundering bandits. I think we must regard the eye as a negative, a kind of "gap" or "hole", which is intruded, filled or occupied by the forms as soon as it "arises". The Buddha said that all beings depend on nutriment, which also seems to point in this direction. The kind of "fullness" or "positivity" that we associate with "being (conscious)" requires something which is "filled up". The senses (by being negatives) allow for "intrusion" and "fullness" (but not fusion). To "conceive" the eye could therefore mean to regard it as something positive instead of seeing its negative nature (as described above). So if we think of the eye as meaty eye-ball, we are cut off from the possibility of understanding what seeing is.

Anxt wrote: So if we think of the eye as meaty eye-ball, we are cut off from the possibility of understanding what seeing is.

No we aren't. Without the understanding of the "meaty eye-ball" we have no explanation for how seeing arises in the first place. Because of course, if someone has no meaty eye balls, they do not see.

That is not the understanding of seeing that I mean. I mean the seeing of the "first-person perspective", which is devoid of "meaty eye-balls". I don't deny that one will find that seeing depends on "meat", but in order to make such a statement, one has to introduce an external or additional point of view (which allows for becoming conscious of one's eye as something positive).

MN148 wrote:Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye.

Yes, but you have to decide whether this is a description that "someone else" makes of you or a description which you make of yourself. The understanding of "eye" will be different (unless you pretend to be "someone else").

Anxt wrote: So if we think of the eye as meaty eye-ball, we are cut off from the possibility of understanding what seeing is.

No we aren't. Without the understanding of the "meaty eye-ball" we have no explanation for how seeing arises in the first place. Because of course, if someone has no meaty eye balls, they do not see.

That is not the understanding of seeing that I mean. I mean the seeing of the "first-person perspective", which is devoid of "meaty eye-balls".

What you mean is eye-consciousness when there is no perception (concept, label, "conceiving") of "eye"

I don't deny that one will find that seeing depends on "meat", but in order to make such a statement, one has to introduce an external or additional point of view (which allows for becoming conscious of one's eye as something positive).

No because in squinting, crossing the eyes, focusing on foreground and background, and taking my finger and gently poking at the place where that is occurring I am perfectly able to make the statement that seeing depends upon "meat." Not to mention, looking in the mirror. No external points of view required. All first-person.

MN148 wrote:Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye.

Yes, but you have to decide whether this is a description that "someone else" makes of you or a description which you make of yourself. The understanding of "eye" will be different (unless you pretend to be "someone else").

Whether I decide this is a description that someone else makes of me, or a description I make of myself, it's still true, and my understanding of "eye" is the same.

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230